It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My sudden change of heart

page: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 


And YOUR post along with a few others in here smells like the typical rhetoric spewd by those who are intolerant of anyone else or their opinions if they differ from their own. Kind of like a bunch of Nazi's but without any teeth.




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by boniknik
 


FALSE!!!!!


19 lowly funded people who live in deserts and caves, always in a hiding...


Try doing some better research.

Please.

Thank you.
edit on 21 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




FALSE!!!!!


19 lowly funded people who live in deserts and caves, always in a hiding...


Try doing some better research.

Please.

Thank you.


Yeah that really convinced me.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by boniknik
 


Argument from Incredulity



Definition
Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:

I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
Therefore, P.
A simple variation on this is

I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
Therefore, not-P.
This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

Examples
Example 1:

Antagonist: I can't imagine how bread rises without fairies; therefore, I believe in faeries.
Example 2:

Antagonist: How could that dowser have made the stick move without paranormal powers? Obviously dowsing has to work.
Example 3:

Antagonist: I can't believe the medium figured all that stuff out about me without spiritual aid; she must be in touch with the paranormal.
Example 4:

Antagonist (Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon): "No one in their right mind can look in the stars and the eternal blackness everywhere and deny the spirituality of the experience, nor the existence of a Supreme Being. There were moments when I honestly felt that I could reach out my hand, just as the pilot John Magee says in his poem 'High Flight', and touch the face of God." (Source: Observer Magazine, 16 June 2002, cited by Julian Baggani)

In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is particularly true when the lack of evidence is merely personal incredulity and other potential explanations, are well-known to others, such as the existence of the ideomotor effect as an explanation of dowsing, or the standard cold reading stage technique as an explanation of many mediums' performances.

Argument from incredulity is also a fallacy in the hands of scientists as well; as Clarke's First Law puts it, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

SOURCE



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I'm happy to see that the OP has come to the side of logic and light. I swear we don't bite and certainly do not drool and act braindead like some sort of sheeple. In fact you'll find most people here, from the lowly janitors to the world's greatest minds. It's a wonderful place filled with the smell of truth and lacking in delusional hysteria. Plus...we have cookies!



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I respect your freedom to think and believe what you choose. I respect mine to differ.

A proper investigation has never taken place. It should have. It still needs to happen. At the end of the day, your interpretation and mine are only that....a full, honest, criminal investigation is needed. We are being denied that.

As a citizen whose rights are being eroded at an alarming rate based on the Official Conspiracy Theory put out by the Government, I need to see a transparent, unbiased, non-corrupt, thorough criminal investigation.

They will not authorise this. That is suspect.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
I respect your freedom to think and believe what you choose. I respect mine to differ.

As a citizen whose rights are being eroded at an alarming rate based on the Official Conspiracy Theory put out by the Government, I need to see a transparent, unbiased, non-corrupt, thorough criminal investigation.

They will not authorise this. That is suspect.


The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about any investigation.

Newtonian physics is over 300 years old. The United States put men on the Moon 41 years ago. Didn't Newtonian Physics have something to do with that? Weren't the first skyscrapers built in the United States? Wasn't it the inexpensive production of structural steel which made that possible.

So why is it that all of our engineering schools are not making a big deal of the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? Not even Richard Gage and his AE911Truth is doing that.

People that can't figure this one out can't think. They are applying the so called REASONING that they apply to religion to think about this. This ain't no 911 religion. This is PHYSICS.

The NIST even admitted that the distribution of mass of the building had to be known to analyze the airliner impact and then they didn't do it.

There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 29 stories. But we are supposed to believe a hydrocarbon fire could weaken that much steel in an hour but then our engineering schools don't talk about how much was there.

I wonder when someone is going to write a book investigating the insane stupidity of post-9/11. It might even be more interesting and bizarre than 9/11 itself.

Duh, it's grade school physics.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

But if people must get religious about it:

www.youtube.com...

LOL

psik



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Vertical columns are meant to hold up the upper building, not horizontal trusses. That is all.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp
 



Originally posted by WashingtonGrewHemp
It was Mossad. Israel had to get us over there to defend them against Iraq and Afghanistan, which posed a risk to their security. Simple.


Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan posed any kind of serious risk to Israel. If the Mossad did have a hand in 9/11 (which I'm not saying they did), then it is to get Americans on board with their policies in the region. A sort of "us against them" model. You see, Israel wouldn't be able to do even a small fraction of what they are doing, with the support from the American people. We not only give them money and weapons, but we also vote in favor of them at the UN, to include the security council. We also use our empire to cast votes in their favor. If it wasn't for the US, the UN would have condemned Israel a long time ago and its leaders would either be hanging from a pole, or they would be in prison for crimes against humanity. The US alone, is the reason that Israel is still there and continuing their policies.

For a better understanding, consult this thread (created by airspoon): Israeli - Palestinian conflict by the numbers (The numbers don't lie)

--airspoon

 
 
 


reply to post by demonseed
 


The difference is that Einstein then didn't profess to know what he was talking about. Einstein actually waited until he had accurate data before coming to a conclusion. You even admitted to not knowing about the TSA. It wasn't as if you hastily used the wrong word. Anyone who has even slightly looked into the events of 9/11 past the media hype, would know such a small and basic detail, yet you didn't, which again wouldn't be a big deal in of itself but what made it a big deal, is that you are professing to know what you are talking about and that others are wrong.

Refer to this comment made by you:


I honestly thought that the TSA always existed. Oops.


You have got to be kidding, right? You profess to know what you are talking about, yet you didn't even know that basic fact. However, that is a small gaff, compared to the other flawed facts:


Buildings in heavily populated areas are built in a way that they collapse inward.

Inaccurate.


this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.

Flawed or misleading.


it simply indicates that buildings that lose a large amount of structural integrity will most likely fall onto their own footprint.

Flawed.


If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives

Flawed logic. There has been scientific consensus on the evidence of explosives, yet you would believe alien laser beams over scientific consensus? Every scientist who has actually looked for evidence of explosives and have since come out with their findings, has found evidence of explosives. I think this sets the entire tone of the logic used in forming your opinion.


We are also talking about a LOT of weight, causing the building to collapse faster as it progresses.

Flawed logic again. There would have to be zero resistance on the bottom of the building for it to hit free-fall speeds and since an airplane didn't crash into the bottom of the building and indeed, an aircraft didn't even crash into Building 7, there should have been resistance.


There are also no signs of explosives being used throughout the building.

Flawed or misleading. You seem to be forgetting about a peer-reviewed scientific paper and scientific consensus from ever scientist who has admitted to looking for explosives.


After watching countless controlled demolitions, NONE of them looked anything remotely close to the collapse of WTC 7.

Flawed or misleading.


The only people hearing explosions are the people inside of the buildings, yet for some reason people outside recording cannot hear them?

Flawed or misleading.


There is still no concrete proof that there was a controlled demolition.

Misleading. People have been convicted of capital offenses (biggest burden of proof required) for much less evidence. Not only do we have countless eye-witness and expert testimony, but we have visual, audio, seismic and forensic evidence. How much more concrete evidence could there be? That evidence would hold up in court much better than even a signed confession.


But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above,

Inaccurate.


having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim

Flawed, as Bones mentioned, even NIST doesn' stand by. This again shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.


no sound during the collapse of explosives going off.

Inaccurate.


Stephen jones with a bag of powder is not evidence.

Misleading, as it isn't Jones and a bag of powder. Rather, it is a consensus of very well respected scientists, to include a peer-reviewed scientific paper. That is as strong of evidence as you are ever going to get on anything. To date, there has not been one single scientist who has gone public with findings that explosives weren't used, after looking for evidence of explosives. The scientists on the truster side admit that they won't even look for evidence of explosives, which is not very scientific at all, especially seeing how they even admit that the collapse of building 7 is unprecedented and mysterious. Also, there are unfounded claims that Bantam is a vanity publisher, which is just smoke and mirrors. Not only is bantam cited in the coursework of very well established universities, but there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Bantam is a vanity publisher, other than an anonymous blogger making a wild claim that s/he or it can not substantiate with proof.

Shall I really go on and on? Your whole presentation is rife with either false facts or flawed logic, which of course wouldn't be a bad thing, provided that you weren't claiming to know what you are talking about. Instead, you profess to be certain and you claim that others are wrong, others I might add that have not based their theories or conclusions on flawed and false data or logic. Had you either said it is your opinion or had you admitted to not understanding the data or not have all of the facts, it would be one thing, but instead you claim to be certain of your findings that others are wrong and you are right.

Do you not see why others would call your assertion ludicrous? Do you not see how others may not either take you seriously or find you credible?

Look, I certainly don't have an issue with someone having or even asserting the wrong facts, as this is what we are here for, to learn and educate. However, when your assertions are that others are wrong and you base these assertions on that flawed data, then you are misleading and misrepresenting your expertise on the issue and that is not only disingenuous, but dishonest too and there really is no excuse for it. The implications are obvious.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Airspoon and Bonez for the win on this argument, case closed. To the OP, read these posts again from these highly intelligent logical thinkers.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I am trying to argue what is the likelihood, and whether the OS is believable.

Do you really believe that the US, with all their state of the art technology in everything, intelligence, surveillance, satellites, highly trained spies, large amount of funding, etc. have no knowledge prior to the attack? And they were attacked by some lowly funded men who lived in the deserts and caves? Oh yeah, I am supposed to just accept that with no questions? If this is the case, you should be scared, because if they can do it, China and others can do it better.

On top of that are the many holes in the OS. What happened to building 7 is still unexplained, that alone will tell you the OS is BS.

I am asking, who is far fetched, the 9/11 truthers or the OS believers?

At the time of Clinton they said they were "trying" to capture Bin Laden, they already knew the threats. If they really wanted to capture Bin Laden, they could have just followed the CNN journalist and many other journalists who interviewed him prior to the attack. And this 9/11 whole thing would have not even happened.

We all agree that the Government lies to us most of the time, but somehow of the very few times they tell us the truth, 9/11 is one of them.


Common sense is not very common after all, and when people ran out of arguments, they argue semantics and grammar.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by boniknik
 


I do believe there are pages of this argument. All of it with some very good information. You brought that fallacy to the table then complain about someone calling you on it? Because you claim there are no argument go arguments against? Right.

A person will generally find the answers that pair with his preconceptions at the onset. Whether or not they are true. Is another matter entirely
edit on 21-11-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: Skinny marinki dinky dinky I love you!



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Evanescence
 


Actually I observe the opposite. It takes a true believe to believe in the official story and the NIST report.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed
I always had doubts in my mind about the conspiracy theories, but in general i felt that many questions had been un-answered and in that regard i gave my credence to the 9/11 conspiracy theories and what the "truthers" stood for.

However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.


You think that there are two competing theories -- there are three. Add to the first two (Truthers and OS) the suggestion that the 911 events were an “Act of God”.

There are too many events, which couldn't have happened, but they did happen. The missing planes and plane parts, the three perfect implosions, the fact that the buildings and their contents were pulverized to dust, and where did the energy come from to do that, the molten metal, the list goes on and on.

Extreme controversy is one of the hallmarks of "Acts of God".

The date “911 2001 AD” converts to the word "Religion".

See my websites listed in my Profile.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I know that there are arguments on both sides, and If you actually understood my post, you will know that the motif of it is that the OS is questionable and requires more faith to believe in. As I have asked again and again, who is more far fetched? The 9/11 truthers or the OS believers?

PEACE.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by boniknik
 


I did actually. A lot of argument from incredulity and personal attack for me pointing it out. Topped with you now attacking my ability to understand.
edit on 21-11-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Vertical columns are meant to hold up the upper building, not horizontal trusses. That is all.


Yeah, so what does that have to do with anything I said?

psik



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by boniknik
As I have asked again and again, who is more far fetched? The 9/11 truthers or the OS believers?


I would say neither is more far-fetched. One one hand you have what you call "believers," which in and of itself is not entirely accurate. The "believers" simply find that the OS is a more accurate representation of what happened that day. In some cases "believers" think the entire story told by the government is true, and in most cases "believers" are people who believe parts are true. For example: I believe that the planes and buildings were real and fell the way the OS story says. I don't, however, believe it was a simple as the media and government pushes. Either the government played a part, or let it happen. I question these things, and it in all technicality makes me a truther.

Then, you have the "truthers," which is also not entirely accurate. The term is used to describe people who don't accept the OS and want to see more "truth," yet the evidence of foul-play in the OS is not always represented. The majority of the arguments are from incredulity and false information. Even the OP of this thread had some serious disinformation that is easily apparent. The "truthers" feel that it is necessary to question things and refuse to accept them regardless of the answers they get. Most of the "truthers" I have run into seem to only even consider information that agrees with their ideas or is so selective that it vaguely supports their question through fallacy. They also employ heavy emotional appeal in their arguments, rarely focusing on facts and saying that you should go with what you feel and not "let the evil people get away with it."

So, after my analysis, the truther base has merit in its most basic form, which is the questioning of what is told, but most of the people who identify as truthers do not deserve the title. In fact, many of the OS supporters here are better truthers, because they do not allow emotion and beliefs to hinder their decisions and conclusions.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well, you said:

There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 29 stories. But we are supposed to believe a hydrocarbon fire could weaken that much steel in an hour but then our engineering schools don't talk about how much was there.


There was enough steel, and a lot of it was severed by the impact and a lot of the fire-resistant material was naturally somewhat damaged. The vertical columns merely had to fail enough to let that top portion hit the portion below. From there, the rest is history because the horizontal trusses were not meant to hold that weight. The building would pretty much destroy itself from there.

I assume that your point was that you believed there was no way for the collapse to initiate, and that NIST and others have not looked into the distribution of steel to completely determine exactly what failed as a result of damage and uneven heat?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed





As for the explosions people are posting. You are posting videos of the collapse of a skyscraper. The video shows a building crumbling and loud sounds occurring as it fails down. Did you expect a hi-rise to make absolutely no sound as it fell?


The point im making here, though, is that the "explosions" are occurring as the building is collapsing. If you watch every demolition video, the explosions are heard seconds before the building actually collapses. However, the "explosions" you are claiming occur AS the building is collapsing.






could you explain to me how william rodriguez and many other people heard explosions in the sub basement levels of the north tower prior to the plane impact? explosions so big a mans skin was hanging off?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join